Srinagar: The High Court of J&K & Ladakh has held that if the initial engagement of a person in the government service is not in accordance with law, he/she cannot be allowed to continue to work with the government.
The court while dismissing a writ petition by one Tasleem Arif engaged as helper in the Municipal Council Baramulla on the recommendations of the then Minister for PHE. Arif was, however, disengaged later on by the government.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted “a valid engagement order was issued in favour of the petitioner and he has been condemned unheard”. He further submitted that the order impugned has been passed in order to defeat the earlier orders passed by this court in the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner.
Arif had approached the court after his initial removal which asked the authorities to consider this regularisation and payment of his wages.
The government lawyer submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, a backdoor appointee, and he was engaged just on the recommendation of the then minister, which has resulted into denial of opportunity of participation in the selection process for engagement to the other eligible candidates.
He further submitted that once the officer who engaged the petitioner was not having competence to engage the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue at the said post and the order impugned has been rightly passed by the respondents.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal while adjudicating the matter said: “there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that the engagement of the petitioner even on consolidated basis has resulted into denial of opportunity of participation in the selection process to other eligible candidates. There is not even an iota of doubt that the petitioner has been engaged just on the recommendations of the minister without any selection process.
“Otherwise also, it is settled law that once the initial engagement of a candidate is not by the competent authority, his services cannot be regularized,” he said.
He said “once this court has come to the conclusion that the initial engagement of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, he cannot be allowed to continue to work with the respondents. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents. Rather the respondents have been categorical in their response that they have taken action against the officers/officials who made the backdoor engagements.”
